A Review of Single Homelessness in the UK Anwen Jones and Nicholas Pleace

Transcription

1 A Review of Single Homelessness in the UK Anwen Jones and Nicholas Pleace

2 ii A Review of Single Homelessness in the UK About Crisis Crisis is the national charity for single homeless people. We are dedicated to ending homelessness by delivering life-changing services and campaigning for change. About CHP The Centre for Housing Policy (CHP) at the University of York was established in 1990 with the support of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. CHP is now one of the leading housing research centres in Europe. Crisis head office 66 Commercial Street, London E1 6LT Telephone: Facsmile: Crisis UK (trading as Crisis) Registered Charity Numbers: E&W , SC Company Number: Crisis 2010 ISBN This report is available to download free of charge from

3 iii Contents Foreword vi Acknowledgements viii Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction: background to the review Research questions and methodology The structure of the report 7 2. Changes and continuities in single homelessness Introduction What is single homelessness? Another way of defining single homelessness: the ETHOS model The scale of single homelessness The range of available data and its limitations The extent of single homelessness and housing exclusion in the UK in 2008/ The number of single people accessing settled housing 17 via the homelessness legislation in 2008/9 2.6 Changes in 2009/ Trends in single homelessness Evidence of increasing diversity among single homeless people Evidence of rising numbers of central and east European 23 migrants among single homeless people Some evidence that some forms of single homelessness are not decreasing New insights into single homelessness Recent arguments about the causes of single homelessness 26 and their implications 2.9 Conclusion Policy developments Introduction Devolution The extension of priority need categories Local homelessness strategies Joined up approaches to tackling homelessness The impact of homelessness strategies Supporting People Rough sleeping policies The Hostels Capital Improvement programme and Places of Change Targeted approaches to helping the most excluded Conclusion The prevention of homelessness Introduction The rise of the prevention agenda What is homelessness prevention? Risk factors associated with single homelessness The perceived benefits of homelessness prevention 48

4 iv A Review of Single Homelessness in the UK Types of homelessness prevention intervention Barriers to prevention The effectiveness of homelessness prevention Effectiveness of interventions Conclusion Housing and support services for single homeless people Introduction An overview of housing support services Changes in the types of housing support service provided The changing roles of housing support services Key issues for housing support services for single homeless people The lack of move on accommodation Coordination with other services Variations in success The development of Housing First Conclusion Single homelessness and health Introduction The effects of single homelessness on health Improving the health of single homeless people Barriers to health care for single homeless people Debates about specialist and mainstream health service provision Key policy and service provision developments from Conclusion Education, training and employment Introduction The evolution of policy and services to help single homeless people 78 into employment Barriers to paid work Services to help single homeless people develop skills and move into paid work The success of employment related services Conclusion Conclusions and recommendations The key achievements of the past decade Local homelessness strategies Changes to the homelessness legislation Supporting People and improved housing support services The development of the prevention agenda Improvements in practice and service delivery in health services 87 for homeless people Employment, training and education services for single homeless people Ending single homelessness The role of the Third sector Future challenges The localism agenda 90

5 v The Big Society Welfare and housing reform Recommendations 92 References 94

6 vi A Review of Single Homelessness in the UK Foreword This review of single homelessness in the UK is extremely timely. It is now over a decade since the Crisis Bricks Without Mortar 30-year review of single homelessness in the UK, and also since the review of single homelessness research which I led for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and CRASH in This new review covering the period 2000 to 2010 is a substantial and thoroughly-evidenced piece of work, and is certainly more ambitious than my own single homelessness review, covering as it does policy and practice developments as well as research. And it has a good news story to tell, as much has improved over the past 10 years. Local homeless strategies and the Supporting People programme have encouraged strategic working on the part of local authorities and their third sector partners, and have led directly to the development of new, improved and more flexible services for single homeless people. The Rough Sleepers Unit and then the Homelessness Directorate, building on the earlier Rough Sleepers Initiatives, were highly effective in reducing the scale and impact of the very most extreme form of homelessness, and have provided an internationally recognized model of intervention. This work continues with the current ambitious targets to end rough sleeping both in London and across England by 2012, and is associated with highly targeted and personalised interventions to address the needs of the most entrenched rough sleepers. The quality of hostels, day centres and other frontline services has improved, most especially as a result of the Places of Change programme in England. The importance of ensuring that single homeless people have access to paid work or other purposeful activity, and also to supportive social networks, has been fully acknowledged only in the last decade. We have seen the first serious attention to homelessness prevention also occur over this timeframe. The extension of priority need status to new categories of single homeless people, notably young people, has strengthened the statutory safety, most of all in Scotland where there is a commitment to abolish priority need altogether by Yet, as is highlighted by the review authors, serious concerns remain. While rough sleeping has diminished in scale since the 1990s, it is far from clear that other forms of single homelessness have declined. Many single homeless people remain outwith the statutory safety net, particularly in England. The lifting of the ring fence on Supporting People funding may place in jeopardy many of the services which have been so important in improving single homelessness interventions over the past few years, especially given the current fiscal climate where statutory priorities are likely to prevail over all others. There is a large and growing problem of homelessness amongst destitute migrants without access to UK welfare protection, particularly economic migrants from central and eastern Europe, but also refused asylum seekers and irregular migrants. The conditions in which some of these homeless migrants are living are truly shocking. Moreover, now that the Coalition Government s agenda on welfare and on housing is becoming clearer, there are evident dangers ahead. Housing was a major loser in the recent Comprehensive Spending Review, with access to social housing likely to become ever more difficult for low-income single people as investment in new build falls and rents rise closer to market levels. The planned cuts to Local Housing Allowance will make access to the private rented sector harder too, especially for those aged under 35 and for those living in London and other expensive areas. It seems inevitable that overcrowding, doubling up and rent arrears will become more common amongst these groups in particular. The critical role that the private rented sector has played in homelessness prevention must surely now be undermined, especially in London. The planned ratcheting up of conditionality within the welfare system,

7 vii as well the proposed cuts to Housing Benefit for the long-term unemployed, will, as always, impact most severely on low-income single people. The Coalition Government s localism agenda carries the obvious risk of undermining national minimum standards in provision for the most vulnerable, especially for potentially unpopular groups like single homeless people. All of these policy factors, as well as an upward trend in unemployment, will tend to increase the scale and persistence of single homelessness. The new Government s Ministerial Working Group on Homelessness is to be warmly welcomed, but its strong focus on rough sleeping risks neglecting broader dimensions of single homelessness. And it remains to be seen how much the government departments involved will be prepared to focus upon homelessness issues when their own priorities, budgets and programmes are facing such cuts. A different kind of danger looking forward is that, with our energies absorbed in damage limitation, we become less ambitious and more insular in our responses to single homelessness. In recent discussions with colleagues in both North America and Europe I have been struck above all by the extent to which Housing First models which prioritise the immediate provision of stable housing (with appropriate support) over housing readiness - are being adopted and debated. While what precisely is meant by Housing First varies widely, there is no doubting the shift in philosophy across much of the developed world from transitional or staircase models of provision for single homeless people, including those with the most complex needs, towards immediate permanent solutions, either in mainstream housing or in permanent supportive housing. Housing First approaches are being pursued in countries as diverse as Canada, Finland, Ireland, Denmark, and Portugal, as well as in the US where the original Pathways model emerged. These Housing First approaches are very often aligned with a desire to move away from managing homelessness to ending it. But in the UK our capacity and readiness to try new approaches such as Housing First may now be undermined by the extent and severity of welfare cuts. More broadly, the needs of the most vulnerable single homeless people may receive less attention as these cuts expose an ever wider cross-section of the population to homelessness. This important new review of single homelessness sets out what has been achieved in the UK over the past decade and what it is important to defend in the next few difficult years. From across Europe and beyond, there is emerging evidence that weaker welfare states are associated with higher levels of homelessness. There is also compelling evidence that housing is one key area of welfare where the UK has been relatively successful in protecting its poorest citizens, mainly as the result of the existence of the Housing Benefit system and a social rented sector allocated overwhelmingly on the basis of need. It is thus all the more alarming that these two key housing policy interventions have been particularly badly hit by the Comprehensive Spending Review. In these exceptionally difficult circumstances it is crucial that policy makers, practitioners, researchers and all other stakeholders work together with single homeless people to ensure that we continue to move forward in addressing this serious form of social injustice. Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick Heriot-Watt University

8 viii A Review of Single Homelessness in the UK Acknowledgements We are grateful to Crisis for funding this research and to Lígia Teixeira and Duncan Shrubsole for their helpful advice. We are also grateful to Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick for her advice and, in particular for her detailed comments on the draft reports. We also wish to thank Lynne Lonsdale for her help in preparing the report. We are particularly indebted to the service users who gave up their time to participate in focus groups and the following organisations and individuals for their contributions. Convention of Scottish Local Authorities Glasgow Homelessness Network Shelter Scotland Edinburgh Cyrenians Homeless Link Crisis St Mungo s Thames Reach Salvation Army Revolving Doors Agency Westminster City Council Greater London Authority Housing and Communities Agency Scottish Executive Welsh Assembly Government Welsh Assembly Government Northern Ireland Housing Executive Northern Ireland Council for the Homeless Huggard Centre, Cardiff Shelter Cymru The Connection at St Martin s Department for Communities and Local Government Department of Work and Pensions National Mental Health Development Unit Dr Nigel Hewett, University College London Hospital and Leicester Homeless Primary Health Care Service Professor Hal Pawson, Heriot-Watt University

9 Executive summary 1 Executive summary Background to the review This review was commissioned by Crisis and conducted by Anwen Jones and Nicholas Pleace at the Centre for Housing Policy at the University of York. The aim of the review was to provide an overview of single homelessness in the UK in the last decade including changes and continuities in single homelessness and policy changes and developments in responses to single homelessness. The last decade has seen a number of important developments in homelessness policy in the UK, not least the divergence in homelessness policy in the four nations of the UK following devolution in These developments have included important changes to the homeless legislation in all parts of the UK; an increased emphasis on homelessness prevention; new strategies to tackle rough sleeping; the Supporting People programme; developments in health provision; and, an increasing emphasis on supporting single homeless people into employment. The focus of the review is the decade which was, for the most part, a time of relatively plentiful resources and positive developments in single homelessness. The context in which the review is published is a very different one. Major public sector spending cuts and radical welfare reforms have been announced and there are to be major changes to the way local government operates. The review involved a comprehensive literature review and in-depth and focus group interviews with key stakeholders from across the UK, including policy makers, service providers, homelessness specialists and single homeless people. Review findings There is evidence that the single homeless population continues to grow more diverse. The proportion of men is falling, there is an over-representation of people with Black ethnic origins, and there is evidence of homelessness among recent migrants, particularly economic migrants from central and eastern European countries. There is limited evidence from England that although homelessness acceptances have fallen very sharply, some forms of single homelessness have not decreased and might even be increasing. Considerable progress has been made in our understanding of the causation and nature of single homelessness, both in the UK and internationally. The causes of single homeless are complex, they are individual and relate to actions and decisions as well as to support needs, characteristics and experiences but they are also related to structural factors and the range and level of welfare and housing support available. Homelessness policies have developed in different ways in each of the four nations of the UK but all have introduced significant changes to the homelessness legislation. The extension of priority need categories to include groups at particular risk of homelessness, such as young people, has been a positive development. However, many single homeless people still have to be deemed vulnerable in order to be considered in priority need under the legislation. In Scotland, priority need is to be phased out by Whilst the principle of this legislative change is welcomed, there remain significant challenges in meeting the 2012 target in the absence of sufficient appropriate accommodation.

10 2 A Review of Single Homelessness in the UK There have been a number of other positive developments including: 1. Local homelessness strategies which encouraged local authorities to recognise the problem of single homelessness and to adopt a more strategic approach to tackling it; 2. The Supporting People programme which encouraged strategic working and the development of new and improved interventions and services. The removal of ring-fenced Supporting People grants might result in funds being diverted away from single homeless people; 3. The Hostels Capital Improvement Programme and Places of Change these programmes were seen to have achieved significant improvements in hostel provision and outcomes for service users, however there is a lack of robust evidence on these programmes; and 4. Rough sleeping policies governments in England, Scotland, and Wales continued to give rough sleeping a high priority and new interventions have been developed to tackle the needs of the most entrenched and marginalized rough sleepers. Although significant progress has been made in tackling rough sleeping, it remains a problem in parts of the UK and it appears to be a growing problem in Northern Ireland. One of the most significant policy changes in the last decade has been the increased focus on the prevention of homelessness. Whilst this development has been welcomed, there are a number of concerns about how the policy operates in practice. Preventative efforts are sometimes focused on those who are likely to be statutorily homeless rather than on single homeless people and, in some cases, local authority officers appear to be more concerned with reducing the number of homelessness acceptances than actually preventing homelessness. There is a need for improved practice in monitoring and evaluation of preventative interventions. Whilst homelessness prevention interventions have been broadly welcomed, international research suggests that an affordable housing supply and adequate wages and/or welfare benefits may be more effective in preventing homelessness. There have also been improvements in housing support for single homeless people. Earlier trends to replace old, large, hostels have continued. New services offer a mixture of smaller more supportive forms of housing and resettlement and tenancy sustainment services to formerly and potentially homeless single people in ordinary housing. The longstanding problem of insufficient affordable, suitable move on housing continues to create operational difficulties. Many single homeless people continue to remain in hostels or other forms of shortterm accommodation for far longer than necessary. There is evidence to suggest that the success of housing support services for single homeless people can vary. However, better data on service outcomes is required to determine the effectiveness of housing support services and the relative effectiveness of different types of interventions. In particular more evidence is needed on longer term outcomes. Single homeless people continue to experience worse health than the general population. Research has consistently shown that homelessness can have detrimental effects on both physical and mental health and well being. There is also evidence that the life expectancy of single homeless people may be significantly less than people who have never experienced homelessness.

11 Executive summary 3 Debates continue over whether single homeless people require specialist health services because of the barriers they face when trying to access mainstream NHS services. Whilst some single homeless people may be able to access mainstream services independently or with some support, those with very high support needs (such as severe mental health problems, substance misuse, and poor physical health) might require specialist health services. Such services are expensive but it is possible that they can produce savings over the long term. There have been improvements in service coordination and joint working in health but problems remain nevertheless. In particular, services are still reluctant to accept responsibility for single homeless people with both mental health and substance misuse problems. International research evidence suggests that housing support services that help coordinate access to healthcare and/ or case manage health services as part of a package of support and care can be effective. The homelessness sector has increasingly recognised the importance of education, training and employment for homeless people and there has been a real growth in services over the last decade, particularly linked to wider welfare to work agendas. The provision of education, training and employment services for single homelessness people, by a range of third sector agencies, has continued to grow. Some single homeless people continue to face significant barriers to securing employment. These can include low educational attainment, little or no work experience, benefit and poverty traps, discrimination by some employers, and health problems. Whilst many single homeless people may be able to find employment with some support, others will find it more difficult, particularly at a time of high unemployment. It is important for services and funding agencies to be realistic about what education, training and employment services can achieve. Although there is some evidence to suggest that participation in education, training and employment programmes can have positive outcomes there is no robust research that demonstrates the effectiveness of these services for single homeless people over time. Conclusions The review found that a good deal of progress had been made over the last decade in tackling single homelessness amongst some groups, particularly young people and people sleeping rough. However, single homelessness remains a significant problem and many of the issues identified in earlier research such as a lack of appropriate and affordable accommodation, the poor health status of single homeless people, and barriers to employment persist. The election of the Coalition Government presents significant challenges for the homelessness sector. There are a number of strategic changes which look set to have important implications for services for single homeless people and strategic responses towards single homelessness, including: the localism agenda, the Big Society, welfare reform, a new work programme, and housing reform. Localism and the Big Society create considerable potential for flexibility in service provision, which might lead to important innovations and opportunities for the third sector. However, there may also be the freedom for a local authority to

12 4 A Review of Single Homelessness in the UK opt to do very little in response to single homelessness. This is a particular concern at time when funding is scarce and there are competing demands for resources from other groups. Changes to Housing Benefit and Local Housing Allowance could place many thousands of households in great financial difficulty, which could result in rent arrears and the likelihood of eviction, and/or in people being left with insufficient income to live on. The Government has also announced a new system of conditionality backed up by tougher sanctions including withdrawal of benefits for those who do not comply. It is likely that single homeless people with ongoing support needs may find themselves subject to sanctions, including withdrawal of benefit. The new Work Programme is yet to be rolled out nationally and it remains to be seen how it will operate in practice. Whilst the programme offers the potential for more personalised, flexible support there are some concerns that smaller voluntary providers may lose out under new contracting arrangements and that service providers, who are to be paid by results, may cherry-pick those clients who are closer to the labour market. This could have serious implications for those single homeless people who require more intensive support. Planned housing reforms are also radical; the Comprehensive Spending Review saw the housing budget cut from 8.4bn over the previous three year period to 4.4bn over the next four years. New social housing tenants will have to pay higher rents and there are also plans to introduce fixed term contracts for new social tenants. Recommendations It is recommended that the requirement to provide meaningful assistance should be rigorously enforced regardless of whether or not someone is deemed in priority need. There remains a need for an adequate supply of affordable accommodation if the long term housing needs of single homeless people are to be addressed. There also remains a need to ensure there are adequate and appropriate support services for single homeless people and to build on the achievements and progress made over recent years in further developing preventative interventions (such as generic and specialist tenancy sustainment). More emphasis should be placed on identifying all groups and individuals at risk of homelessness at an earlier stage and on the development of effective early prevention interventions for those at risk of becoming homeless. Local authorities and other services working with single homeless people must ensure that private rented sector accommodation is of a decent standard and that adequate support is available for vulnerable tenants. High quality specialist health services should continue to be supported. At the same time more needs to be done to address the discrimination and prejudice that many single homeless people face when trying to access mainstream health services. There is also a clear need for more adequate support for those with dual diagnosis. Education, training and employment (ETE) services that target single homeless people can be effective and these specialist services should be retained as welfare to work support is reformed. There needs, however, to be an increased focus on

13 Executive summary 5 evidencing the success of ETE services for single homeless people. The Government should continue to draw on the expertise and experience of third sector agencies in developing responses to homelessness. The third sector must continue its efforts to demonstrate both the continued need for its services and its expertise in providing effective services for single homeless people. Finally, there is now considerable divergence between the different nations of the UK in their responses to single homelessness. In England, with the advent of the localism agenda, a similar divergence may become evident at local authority level and there are good opportunities for learning from comparative research in this new context. The Government has to recognise that while small-scale voluntary organisations have an important role in delivering services, they will require sufficient and (relatively) secure funding streams if they are to be able to deliver services of a high standard. The Government must ensure adequate funding for third sector services if the positive achievements made over the past decade are to be sustained and developed. Central Government must ensure that the devolution of power and autonomy to local authorities under their localism agenda does not result in the needs of vulnerable single homeless people being neglected. Lessons should be drawn from the experiences of the London Delivery Board in supporting the most entrenched rough sleepers. Services must be encouraged and enabled to develop effective responses to the needs of changing client groups whether or not these groups have recourse to public funds. There is a need to strengthen the evidence base in order to improve knowledge about the nature and extent of single homelessness and to further develop cost effective responses to the problem.

14 6 A Review of Single Homelessness in the UK Introduction: background to the review This review was commissioned by Crisis and conducted by the Centre for Housing Policy at the University of York. It is well over a decade since Crisis commissioned a review which looked at the changing nature of single homelessness and policy developments over the previous thirty years (Foord et al. 1998). It is almost twenty years since the last major survey of single homelessness (Anderson et al., 1993), and ten years since the publication of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and CRASH funded review of single homelessness research (Fitzpatrick et al., 2000). The last decade has seen a number of important developments in homelessness policy in the UK, not least the divergence in homelessness policy following devolution in 1998 when the UK Parliament transferred a range of powers to the governments of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Developments have included important changes to the homelessness legislation in all parts of the UK; an increased emphasis on homelessness prevention; the introduction of new rough sleeper strategies and the setting of ambitious targets to eradicate rough sleeping; the Supporting People programme, and an increasing emphasis on supporting single homeless people into paid employment. The focus of this review is the decade which was, for the most part, a time of relatively plentiful resources, innovation, and increased strategic coordination of homelessness services. The context in which the review is published is a very different one. Major changes to how local government operates and to the delivery of social and welfare policy are planned. The localism agenda 1 in England, which is now part of the Coalition Government s Big Society vision, will see an end to the ring-fencing of central government grants to local authorities and a reduction in central guidance and monitoring of local government. These changes could potentially lead to much greater diversity in how, and to what extent, individual local authorities choose to respond to single homelessness. The Big Society 2 will promote voluntarism as a response to social and welfare needs in what may be an unprecedented way which could radically influence responses to single homelessness. The October 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review will result in huge cuts in public expenditure, including a 12% reduction in Supporting People funding over the four year review period. It is highly likely that there will be far less money available from the State to support single homelessness services by The Coalition Government has also announced reductions and further restrictions in Housing Benefit and Local Housing Allowance entitlements; and more recently, radical welfare reforms which will introduce a Universal Credit 3 but also a new system of conditionality backed up by tougher sanctions (including withdrawal of benefits) for those who do not comply. The reality of the changes being introduced by the new Coalition government is yet to be seen and while it is possible to say that some of the news do not look encouraging, it would be wrong to simply assume that all the proposed changes will have a negative impact on single homeless people and the services working with them. Cuts to Housing Benefit and Local Housing Allowance are clearly a concern but there are also some promising signs. For example, the establishment of a new inter-ministerial working group on homelessness 4 and proposed changes to the welfare system which, if they work as intended, might help single homeless people to take up employment.

15 1. Introduction: background to the review Research questions and methodology The aim of this review was to provide an overview of single homelessness in the UK, including changes and continuities in single homelessness and the current scale of the problem. The specific research questions were: What patterns can be discerned from the scale of single homelessness over the past ten years? What is the present profile of the single homeless population and what are the key causes of single homelessness? What impact have recent policy developments had on outcomes for single homeless people and those at risk of homelessness? What do key experts and people with experience of homelessness think the future policy and practice priorities should be? The review involved: a comprehensive review of published research studies and other relevant literature and key homelessness statistics; analysis of homelessness statistics (P1E, HL1 etc), Supporting People Client Record and Outcome data; CORE and other relevant homelessness statistics; and in-depth and focus group interviews with key stakeholders from across the UK, including policy makers, service providers, homelessness specialists and single homeless people. Most of the fieldwork for this review took place before the general election in May The structure of the report Chapter 2 presents findings from the literature on changes and continuities in single homelessness and the scale and nature of the problem. Chapter 3 discusses the significant policy developments in single homelessness over the last decade and presents key stakeholders assessments of their impact. Chapter 4 examines in some detail one of the main policy developments of recent years, the rise of the homelessness prevention agenda, and considers the views of key stakeholders on the impact of preventative interventions on single homelessness. Chapter 5 provides an overview of developments in housing support services for single homeless people and key stakeholders views on current provision. The health status and needs of single homeless people are discussed in Chapter 6 which also examines key stakeholders views on the progress made in addressing these. Chapter 7 presents an overview of education, training and employment services for single homeless people and the views of key stakeholders on the provision of such services for single homeless people. Finally, Chapter 8 presents some conclusions on the developments in single homelessness of the past decade and provides an overview of some of the likely challenges over coming years. The chapter concludes with a number of recommendations for future policy.

16 8 A Review of Single Homelessness in the UK Endnotes 1 Localism has been on governmental agendas for some time and the previous Labour government produced many White Papers and consultations on localism. Broadly it involves devolution to greater local government; locally delivered public services; and more empowered local communities. Since the election, the new Government has, with the Big Society, focused on localism. 2 For more information on what Big Society means see: cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/407789/ building-big-society.pdf 3 For more information on the Universal Credit see: policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-keydocuments/universal-credit/ 4 The new working group comprises representatives from Department of Communities and Local Government, Department of Health, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Department for Work and Pensions, Ministry of Justice, Home Office, Department for Education and the Ministry of Defence.

17 2. Changes and continuities in single homelessness 9 2. Changes and continuities in single homelessness 2.1 Introduction This chapter explores what we currently know about single homeless people in the UK. It looks mainly at UK evidence, though it also looks at some findings from international research that could have implications for how we understand single homelessness in the UK. The chapter begins by looking at how single homelessness is defined, and then discusses how the European ETHOS typology might be useful in helping us understand the patterns and extent of single homelessness in the UK. Following this is a section that looks at what we know about the scale of single homelessness in the UK which also talks about gaps in the available information. The chapter then reviews the ideas about the causes of single homelessness that have emerged in the last decade. This chapter concludes by highlighting some areas where more research is needed. 2.2 What is single homelessness? Single homelessness refers to homelessness among people of adult age without dependent children. It can affect anyone, but the research evidence suggests the experience is concentrated among people with support needs and/or who are on low or very low incomes and/or have a history of worklessness and poor educational attainment. Single homeless people are quite often defined in the UK as being within one of three groups: single homeless people who qualify for the main duty under the homelessness legislation operating in the UK, also known as statutorily homeless single people; single people who are homeless under the terms of the homelessness legislation, but who are not in priority need and do not qualify for the main duty, also known as non-statutorily homeless single people; and single people who are in a situation of housing exclusion. The latter group is often referred to as hidden homeless 1 due to their housing circumstances which are often literally hidden from sight although Crisis uses the term hidden homeless to refer to both of the last two groups: namely all those who meet the legal definition of homelessness (see below) but have not been provided with accommodation by their local authority, either because they have not applied for homelessness assistance or because they have applied and been judged to be not in priority need. The main duty of local authorities under the homelessness legislation in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland is that they must provide temporary accommodation 2 until settled 3 housing becomes available. In Scotland, local authorities must provide settled

18 10 A Review of Single Homelessness in the UK accommodation for all qualifying households. The current homelessness legislation in the UK was established in the 1977 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. The original Act covered England, Scotland and Wales and the legislation was extended to Northern Ireland in To be provided with accommodation (the main duty ) a person or household has to be accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need under the terms of the legislation. A household who is in this position is usually described as statutorily homeless. The tests for whether a household is eligible for the main duty include: Is the household eligible? households (families, couples or individuals) must be eligible for assistance under the legislation (certain groups from abroad such as asylum seekers and others under Immigration Control are not eligible 5 ); Is the household homeless? people are homeless under the terms of the legislation if they are without any accommodation in the UK (or, in Northern Ireland, anywhere in the world) which they have a legal right to occupy, together with their whole household. Those who cannot gain access to their accommodation, or cannot reasonably be expected to live in it (for example because of a risk of violence or because it is unfit) are also homeless under the terms of the legislation 6. Is the household threatened with homelessness? - a person or household is viewed as threatened with homelessness under the terms of the legislation if they are likely to become homeless within 28 days. Is the household intentionally homeless? this refers to deliberate acts or omissions that cause a person to lose their accommodation (e.g. deliberately running up rent arrears or committing anti-social behaviour or giving up accommodation that it was reasonable to occupy); Is the household in priority need? households must be in priority need under the terms of the legislation. Priority categories of homeless households who are owed the main homelessness duty are slightly different in the four nations of the UK 7 but broadly include: households with dependent children; pregnant women; 16 and 17 year olds; young people under 21 who have been in care; households who became homeless due to an emergency (for example fire or flood); households where a member is in some way vulnerable, including being vulnerable as a result of: a mental health problem; a physical or learning disability old age; spending time in custody, care or the armed forces; domestic violence or abuse or other types of violence or threats of it; and other special reasons. Does the household have a local connection? - housing authorities may also consider whether applicants have a local connection with the local district, or with another district, but this requirement can be waived, for example if a household has to move between areas because they are at risk of domestic violence Another way of defining single homelessness: the ETHOS model British definitions of single homelessness tend to be focused on the homelessness legislation. The three groups of single homeless people identified above are defined in terms of being homeless and eligible for full assistance due to priority need (statutorily homeless single people), homeless and ineligible for full assistance because not in priority need (non statutorily homeless single people) or as not regarded as homeless under the terms of the legislation.

19 2. Changes and continuities in single homelessness 11 Table 2.1 The ETHOS typology ROOFLESS 1 People living rough 2 People staying in a night shelter HOUSELESS 3 People in accommodation for homeless people (including temporary accommodation) 4 People in women s shelters 5 People in accommodation for immigrants 6 People due to be released from institutions (prison and hospital) who are at risk of homelessness due to support needs and people who are unable to move on from institutions due to lack of suitable move on housing) 7 People receiving support (due to homelessness i.e. in supported accommodation, including those unable to move on from supported housing due to lack of suitable) INSECURE 8 People living in insecure accommodation (squatting, illegal camping, sofa surfing or sleeping on floors, staying with friends or relatives) 9 People living under threat of eviction 10 People living under threat of violence INADEQUATE 11 People living in temporary / non-standard structures 12 People living in unfit housing 13 People living in extreme overcrowding Source: Adapted from FEANTSA (see One problem with this approach is that the legislation works in different ways in some of the member nations of the UK, most notably Scotland. Further, there is evidence the legislation is not interpreted and applied in a consistent way. London boroughs, for example, may have harsher interpretations of when a household is owed the main duty than authorities in areas where homelessness and demand for social housing are less acute. One of the most helpful developments in the last decade has been the creation of the European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion which is referred to as ETHOS (see Table 2.1 above). ETHOS was developed under the auspices of FEANTSA, 9 the European level network of providers of homelessness services supported by the European Union. There is no official definition of homelessness in Europe and the EU Council of the Regions (2010) has recently urged member states to adopt the ETHOS typology. ETHOS focuses on the individual and on their housing status; it does not attempt to relate that position to legislation or eligibility criteria for assistance but instead focuses on housing need. ETHOS is built on the assumption that to have a home entails having: an adequate living space which is accessible only to the household who live within it (the physical domain of home); a living space in which a household can enjoy privacy and their emotional life (the social domain of home); and a living space which a household has a legal title to occupy (the legal domain of home). ETHOS provides a clearly defined, unambiguous and widely accepted definition of which living situations can be regarded as homelessness. ETHOS defines four main forms of homelessness and housing exclusion which are shown in Table 2.1. These are rooflessness; houselessness ; insecure housing; and inadequate housing.

20 12 A Review of Single Homelessness in the UK The scale of single homelessness The range of available data and its limitations Table 2.2 uses ETHOS to help summarise the quality and extent of statistical information available on different forms of single homelessness in the UK. In many areas information on single homeless people is not as well developed as it could be (see Chapter 4 in Cloke et al, 2001; Pawson and Davidson, 2006). Data on roofless single people and single people in emergency accommodation Information on the numbers of people sleeping rough is confined largely to street counts. When street counts are conducted, the areas covered are often limited in size. This means people sleeping rough who hide out of sight, are outside the area or services that surveyed, or who do not approach services, are not counted. Equally importantly, street counts are usually snapshot or stock measures, i.e. only people present in services or sleeping rough on a given night, or over the course of a week or two, are included. This means the annual prevalence, i.e. the number of people sleeping rough over one year, generally has to be estimated. Table 2.2 Available data on single homelessness in the UK ETHOS conceptual category ETHOS operational category Data available Roofless People living rough Survey data including academic research (cannot usually be used to estimate numbers) and street counts. Some city level databases, such as CHAIN in London. In Scotland, local authorities record all homeless applicants with a history of sleeping rough. Data for Northern Ireland largely restricted to Belfast. Houseless Insecure Inadequate People staying in emergency accommodation People in accommodation for the homeless People in women s shelter (refuge) People in accommodation for immigrants People due to be released from institutions People receiving support due to homelessness People living in insecure accommodation People living under threat of eviction or repossession People living under threat of violence People living in temporary/non standard structures People living in unfit housing People living in overcrowded housing Administrative data in England (Client Record, Outcomes Data) but not elsewhere in UK, Survey data of service providers (SNAP) and research surveys. Administrative data in England only (Client Record, Outcomes Data) and Survey data (SNAP). Research surveys. Counts of households who are in priority need in the statutory system. Administrative data in England only (Client Record, Outcomes Data) and Survey data (SNAP). Research surveys and databases held by Women s Aid Federation England, Scottish Women s Aid and Welsh Women s Aid. Some administrative data for people seeking asylum and refugee groups. Undocumented migrants are not monitored and no monitoring of refugees housing status. Monitoring of housing situation of offenders on probation, no monitoring of other offenders. No NHS monitoring. Extensive monitoring of care leavers. Administrative data for England (Client Record, Outcomes Data) but not for elsewhere in the UK No specific data. No data on extent of squatting in UK. Ministry of Justice data on Mortgage and Landlord possession claims issued in England and Wales. Criminal justice statistics for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Local authority run sites for travellers are documented, but there are no specific data on these groups Survey data at national level in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland Survey data at national level in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland

21 2. Changes and continuities in single homelessness 13 Data in Scotland are in some respects better than those elsewhere, because the number of people reporting a history of sleeping rough when applying for assistance under the homelessness legislation is recorded and repeat applicants are controlled for, allowing for some idea of the annual prevalence of rough sleeping. However, this information is confined to people approaching local authorities, not a census or survey of everyone who is single and homeless (Scottish Government, 2010). Detailed information on the characteristics of people sleeping rough is usually confined to academic and health research. This research can be structured in such a way as to compensate for possible sampling errors and can thus be more representative of single people sleeping rough than is the case for single night snapshot street counts. However, while these surveys can tell us about the needs, characteristics and experiences of people sleeping rough, as well as something about their routes into homelessness, they are often not designed to produce overall estimates of numbers. Data on single people in accommodation for homeless people The Client Record and Outcomes Data were designed to collect information on housing support services funded through the former Supporting People programme in England. These comprehensive administrative records provide extensive data, but they are limited to people who use services. The Client Record and the Outcomes Data also do not control for double counting in the publically released and reported data. For example, a single homeless person using three different hostels or night shelters during the course of a year would be counted three times. In addition, these data may record people s needs differently depending on which services they access. There is some evidence that housing support services classify people according to their primary function. For example, the same individual can be recorded as homeless with problematic drug use by a specialist homelessness and substance misuse service, but they might only be recorded as homeless by a homelessness service and only recorded as a problematic drug user by a substance misuse project. 10 Some research has suggested the margin of error caused by partial recording of characteristics by services may be as much as 30-40% (Rogers et al, 2007). A recent addition to the evidence base in England is the Survey of Needs and Provision (SNAP) conducted by Homeless Link. 11 This survey samples approximately one-third of the 1,648 services in the Homelessness Service database. While SNAP provides useful data it has some limitations in the sense of being drawn from a sample, and drawing responses from service providers rather than homeless people themselves. SNAP also replicates significant amounts of data collected by the Client Record and Outcomes Data (Schertler, 2010). Data on single people at risk of homelessness due to be released from institutions Data on the rate at which people leaving institutions join the single homeless population are also limited. For example, the number of offenders on Probation who become homeless on leaving prison is monitored, though only for the Probation period. As most people released from prison have served short sentences and are consequently not on Probation, their housing situation is not monitored (Pleace and Minton, 2009). The NHS does not collect data on the rate at which people leaving hospital or psychiatric units become homeless. While it is clear some form of relationship between mental ill health and single homelessness exists, the true extent of the association remains uncertain. Data on single people living under threat of eviction Ministry of Justice and court data provide information on repossession and eviction